Subject: Re: [Boost-build] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee?
From: Douglas Capeci (doug_capeci_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-14 14:42:42
Our schedules and resources are tight through the end of the year, but certainly I am open to understanding what is required to keep it going for the long-term, so I can decide what resources on my end could be available for helping out.
The thing that gets my goat here is that I don't see any clear reasoning or explanation as to why the steering committee has started the process to move in the direction of phasing out Boost Build. Doesn't the user community deserve an explanation of this?
On Aug 14, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost-build wrote:
> On 8/13/17 7:03 PM, Douglas Capeci via Boost-build wrote:
>> You certainly may quote me, and my strong support for keeping Boost Build.
>> My group has carefully evaluated other alternatives (one of them being cMake) and we found Boost Build and Jam to be far superior for C++ systems than any of the others. We liked it so much that we have integrated Boost Build and Jam into our Sun Grid Engine compute environment to perform all of our C++ software builds.
> Perhaps your group might want to consider contributing to boost build development, maintenance, testing or documentation. Since your already very familiar with it, it would entail only modest expenditure of resources. This would also be the one thing that you can do to ensure it's continue availability.
> Robert Ramey
> Unsubscribe & other changes: https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk